1898] EASTERN ACAULESCENT VIOLETS 331 
VIoLa PALMATA L. Sp. Pl. 933, 1753. 
V. palmata var. a vulgaris Ell. Bot. S. C. & Ga.t: 300. 1817. 
V. palmata var. B fragrans Ell., |. c. 
V. cucullata var. palmata A. Gray, Man. 78. 1867. [Ed. 5.] 
Concerning this species there is a substantial agreement 
among the early authorities. Mr. Edmund G. Baker in a recent 
issue of the British Journal of Botany discusses the Linnzean type, 
which was based upon a poorly drawn figure of Plukenet; this 
might indeed stand for any of the HETEROPHYLL&, but Mr. Baker 
points out that both of Plukenet’s specimens are pubescent and 
adds that the figure in Britton and Brown’s Flora fairly matches 
the types, although these have leaves slightly less lobed. The 
true palmata, then, is a plant of rich woodlands, usually distinctly 
pubescent, with rather dark purple flowers, and leaves exhibit- 
ing a great diversity of lobation. I recognize in addition two 
well-known varieties, both of which are referable to older author 
ities, and abundantly represented in most herbaria. 
VIOLA PALMATA pILATATA EIl., 1. c. 
V. triloba Schwein., Am. Journ. Sci. 5: $9... 1034, 
V. congener Le Conte, Ann, N. Y. Lyc. 2: 140. 1828. 
The leaves in this variety are uniformly three-lobed, though 
occasionally some of them will be found nearly entire, as often 
happens in the type. The lobes vary in shape, and are frequently 
dentate or incised, but the central one is constantly the largest. 
In the District of Columbia this is the prevailing form ; indeed 
the range of palmata and its varieties is so strongly marked as 
almost to warrant a separation of dilatata and the type as two 
distinct species. V. palmata in its typical form I have not seen 
South of Harpers Ferry, except in the Blue Ridge mountains. 
In the lowlands it seems to be entirely replaced by dilatata. 
Schweinitz argues very strongly in favor of the specific identity 
of V. triloba, as he called it, and inall probability he had observed 
the difference in range between the two. The character of 
Elliott’s description, and the habitat cited for his plant, leave 
little doubt as to its identity. 
